Talk:Umayyad Palace

New title needed
How self-centered can one be to name this page this way? "Umayyad palace (Amman)", please. There are dozens of Umayyad palaces!Arminden (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the name that the sources use, unless you would like to rename the palace yourself. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Makeandtoss, just google for "Umayyad palace" and you'll see that Amman isn't the only city coming up. Just across the Jordan Rift Valley there is one (actually 4) in Jerusalem, Syria and Spain have a few, and the more elaborate qusur also go by that name. It's like Israelis and Palestinians insisting that "Old City" be reserved for Jerusalem. ... and guide books are not quotable sources unless you find nothing better. I have worked on quite a few and know first-hand how inaccurate they are. They're not academically reviewed by any stretch of the imagination. Try to see the bigger picture. WP is global. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a palace being built by the Umayyads and a palace named Umayyad. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's the mistake. It is not a proper name. It is not called Umayyad like the Buckingham Palace is called Buckingham, or the Versailles - Versailles, and so on. This name, "Umayyad Palace", or "Urn Tomb" or "Corinthian Tomb", are names given by archaeologists and picked up by the guide books, and from there they got everywhere. Guide books are NOT an acceptable source unless published, say, by Oxford or alike. For archaeologists, that's what is relevant: ON THE JABAL al-QALA' in Amman, so not "in the world", THIS is the Umayyad structure, and by size etc. it's defined as a palace. Exactly the same way, they define the five structures on and near the Haram ash-Sharif/Temple Mount as "Umayyad palaces", INCLUDING the oldest Al-Aqsa Mosque! Why? Because they're all 5 from the Umayyad period, and all 5 have the shape & size of a palace. Of course 4 would be residential & administrative "palaces", while one is a mosque, but that's PROFESSIONAL TERMINOLOGY from the field of archaeology. When underpaid guidebook writers simply copy, like parrots, from archaeology tractates and papers, they create such confusions like the one you're in now. Anyway, IF this site would be as famous as the Great Mosque of Damascus, then MAYBE it would be entitled to be called simply "The Umayyad Palace". But even that mosque is known as "the" Umayyad Mosque, as well as the Great Mosque of Damascus. WP just opted for one of the two. Butthis Amman qasr is nowhere as famous, so calling it simply "Umayyad Palace" is... weird, to call it politely. Petra needs no explanations, even though there are other people and maybe places of that name, like Paris must mean France, only Paris Texas needs a specification. But the Amman qasr isn't all that famous :-) Cheers, Arminden (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The only name change possible is to "Umayyad Palace (Amman)", but since the "Umayyad Palace" name is available, I don't see what the problem is. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Makeandtoss. Sure, that's exactly what I meant. Why? Because if anyone anywhere wants to look up an Umayyad palace, or the term as such, they end up in Amman. And the Amman palace isn't as archaetypical or otherwise significant or famous as, say, the Umayyad Mosque of Damascus, as to deserve this prominence. Thanks.Arminden (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)talk:ArmindenArminden (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)